Why We Gave up Our Lead

So I had to give myself some time to cool down and think about the game with a clear head, as well as read other opinions before I said anything here.

Now I've noticed four popular theories on the internets: Diaby is stupid, Squillaci is crap, Arsenal have no mental strength, Dowd should be beheaded.

The latter, in my opinion, is the most plausible theory. I don't know if Dowd himself is biased, but the performance he put in was certainly biased, whether intentional or not.

Diaby's sending off certainly changed the game, and if one player could be held responsible for the result on Saturday, then it's him. But what he did is understandable, if not acceptable. He's been injured so badly and so often now that I can't blame him for losing his head against Barton, who had assaulted him and our players a few times in the game before Diaby retaliated.

I understand Diaby's anger, but he did exactly what Barton wanted him to, and he let his team down.

So you could say what Diaby did was stupid, but Diaby himself is not stupid. Some are saying that this is the end for him, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. He is an extremely good player and he'll more than make up for his mistake in the coming matches.

But it has to be said that if Dowd had done what he was supposed to (that is, discipline Barton), Diaby would never have needed to lash out the way he did.

I can't question the mental strength (what does that mean anyway?) of the team. They've proven quite a lot of times that they have what it takes to fight and win games, even when the referee is against them. In fact, just as recently as the Everton game everyone was praising the team's mental strength and fighting spirit. It's disappointing that so many people have taken a U-turn on that after this game, when in my opinion the result had nothing to do with mental strength.

The problem with questioning the team's mental strength or even their skill in this case is that you're dealing with very fine margins. Suppose that Tiote's equalizing shot hit the bar and bounced out instead of going in. We'd win 4-3, and I have no doubt that everyone would be saying how mentally strong and amazing this team is because they've managed to win two tough games despite the referee's best efforts to deny them. Just like Wolves' near-comeback against Man City, this wouldn't have lived long in anyone's memory.

Or let's say Barton's second penalty hits one of Szczesny's long legs and flies over the bar. Again, the match stays at 4-2, Newcastle score again at the death to make it 4-3 but Arsenal hold on. Once again, one little thing can change the outlook of the game completely.

So it's important that we don't draw any massive conclusions from this. Yes, it was a bad game, it was just one. And it doesn't change the mental or techinical make up of this team.

Besides the obvious influence of Dowd, I believe the following factors led to our downfall:

First, we lost, in Djourou, our best central defender, and our best central defensive pairing. Besides that, it's never good to change your defensive partnership during games so this was always going to hurt us.

Second, in Diaby we lost our only remaining holding midfielder. Wilshere plays that role well enough but he needs a more physical and defensive presence beside him. We were missing Song and Denilson so Fabregas and Wilshere were left to protect the back four. Not the ideal holding partnership, especially when you're down to ten men. And especially since the referee is happy to let Newcastle continue their bullying in midfield. We needed Diaby's physical presence in there.

Third, in both Diaby and Djourou, we lost all the height from our team, so set-pieces became a real threat. We didn't concede from one but it gave Newcastle something to aim at. Knowing they could score from a set-piece must have given them the impetus to keep fighting.

Fourth, fatigue probably kicked in in the second half, as you would expect after a 3 game week. With 11 men it wouldn't matter but with 10 the effect became all the more pronounced.

Fifth, we stopped attacking with any purpose. Even with ten men I expected us to create at least some danger for Newcastle, but, as Wenger said, we focused a bit too much on just protecting our lead. With a 4 goal cushion you can't blame them but I'm sure if the players had pushed on a bit we could've at least have stemmed the flow of the Newcastle attacks.

I don't think Wenger made any tactical errors. It was suggested that he should've brought on Chamakh and Bendtner to help with set pieces and crosses but the problem with playing too many strikers is that they're not very good at defending in open play. They can't mark and they can't tackle very well. Their presence would have hurt more than help, in my opinion.

Overall, Wenger did what he could and this was a game he really couldn't save.

Wilshere is England's Future

So Mr.Capello thinks Wilshere is an amazing player with super-human amazingness. I think he's absolutely right in what he thinks. But that's a fairly obvious thought to think. Obviously Mr. Capello thinks that because everyone else does.

What everyone might not agree with him on, though, is where he wants to put Wilshere in his England side. He wants Wilshere to play "the Makelele role" which is a role in which the player plays just ahead of the defenders. A defensive midfielder. Or a holding midfielder. But yeah, that's where Capello wants to put Wilshere.

Now people might think he's totally wasting young Wilshere back there near the defenders, when he should be playing just behind the striker and wreaking all sorts of havoc in the opponents defensive line. Which is a good point, but I think he can be an even more immense player for England if he plays in a deeper midfield role. Two reasons.

One, that's where England need him. As Capello rightly said, there are no English players at the top level who play this role. England need him there. On the other hand England have players like Lampard and Gerrard who can play that attacking role well.

But does Wilshere really play this role for Arsenal? He does, sort of. At Arsenal we play with two holding midfielders. They are both given license to go forward, but they are certainly tactically aware and defensively responsible players and are good at winning the ball.

If he replicates his Arsenal performances for England, Wilshere would be filling a gaping hole in the England squad.

Two, his technical abilities are needed deep in midfield as much as they are higher up in the final third. He may not be as influential in the final third but playing deep he can help England keep possession and build attacks from the back, which is crucial. It is better if all players, even the defensive ones, are able to play the ball and be effective in any part of the pitch. Mr.Capello and previous England coaches tried doing that by putting Lampard and Gerrard in the holding midfield roles but it didn't quite work, because while they are technically good, they aren't used to playing that role. Wilshere is.

So will he play exactly the Makelele role? Mr.Capello said that Wilshere can defend but he is more dangerous than Makelele when he has the ball. So Wilshere's better than Makelele. I think Mr.Capello is absolutely right, again!

Since Wilshere is better on the ball, we can expect him to make some forward runs and be more involved in the attacking moves. I can see him buzzing around the pitch, making a short passes and touching the ball everywhere on the pitch.

But here's the thing, today the best teams no longer play with just one holding midfielder ahead of the back four. The trend today is playing with two staggered central midfielders. Even Arsene Wenger decided to change the 4-1-4-1 of last season to a 4-2-3-1 in which Wilshere has excelled. So Mr. Capello is right again, Wilshere may be too lonely playing as the only holding midfielder, but that wouldn't be as much because of his age, as much as because one holding player has become a little too easy to beat. So the Makelele role may very well be dead.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops.